6 ms·

So you'd try to get a refund on your beach vacation if it rained?

by NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

mads 4y ago
Well, if he was promised 100% sunshine, he might.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
sgarrity 4y ago
This feels a bit more like the power & water was cut off to the beach house, but I like taking metaphors one step to far.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  The basic point is that no-one pays for a Twitter client expecting it to keep working if (say) Twitter closes down or pivots into a rideshare company or decides to close down third-party access to the platform. On any reasonable viewpoint that's a risk accepted by the purchaser, not the app seller.
  - esskay 4y ago
    If you bought a 12 month subscription to Netflix and they closed down next week are you honestly saying you wouldn't be asking for a refund? It doesn't matter that its an app for Twitter, you've paid for someone to provide something they can no longer deliver.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      If I bought a Netflix subscription, I'd expect them to provide the Netflix service. If I bought a TV with a Netflix app on it, I wouldn't expect a partial refund from the people who sold me the TV. Do you honestly not see these two things are different? One is "I paid for a service" and the other is "I paid for something to help me use a service".
      - schnebbau 4y ago
        You've straw-manned this. Netflix and Twitterific are the same thing: you pay a subscription and you expect to receive value in return.
      - kelnos 4y ago
        Terrible analogy. If I buy a TV that has smart features or apps on it, I'm only marginally paying for the apps. It's even possible that Netflix is paying the TV manufacturer in order to be in the default install, so I'm not even paying for the apps; possibly I'm even paying slightly less for the TV than I otherwise would. (Even if that's not the case, that doesn't really change the calculus for me.) So, no, if Netflix disappeared in this case, I would not ask for a partial refund. The TV still works as a TV, and that's what I really paid for in the first place. (If Netflix didn't disappear, but the TV app stopped working, I might be -- justifiably -- annoyed, though!) This Twitterific thing is in no way comparable: the app only interacts with Twitter. That's its entire reason for being. If it can't do that, then it is worthless, and anyone who paid for it is perfectly in their rights to demand a refund. Hell, the Twitterific folks should be pro-actively refunding the unused portions of subscriptions; that's the only ethical thing to do here.
        NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        Did you ever own a dial-up modem? Was its only purpose for being that you logged into your ISP with it? Did you consider trying to get a refund when your ISP stopped providing dial-up service?
        esskay 4y ago
        Dial up was an on-demand pricing model, not a subscription. By your own rules that doesnt work. Now, if you had dial up and paid a subscription for access to a free phone number and they cut you off before your subscription ended, then yes you absolutely would expect a refund.
        kelnos 4y ago
        Yes, I did own a dial-up modem. In addition to connecting to my ISP, I spent many years connecting to various local BBSes. The ISP wasn't the only reason I had the modem. And, regardless, if my ISP stopped providing dial-up service, and I really still wanted dial-up service, I would have simply found another ISP to connect to. (After expecting my previous ISP to issue me a pro-rated refund for whatever subscription I was paying them.) Also regardless, your analogy is bad, as the modem was a one-time cost. The issue at hand is that of recurring subscription fees Twitterific charges. If we were just talking about a one-time cost to buy the Twitterific app, I wouldn't be suggesting the refund that cost (except to customers who just bought the app right before the shutdown, perhaps; seems shitty to keep customer money when the product irreparably breaks a few days after purchase).
  - kelnos 4y ago
    But Twitter did not close down or pivot into a rideshare company. Yes, they did close down third-party access to their platform, but that is completely not the same as those other things you mention. I doubt most Twitterific customers have any idea what a third-party API platform is, let alone Twitter's shady history with how they've treated API developers. Your average Twitterific purchaser probably just thinks it's a premium Twitter app that lets them do Twitter things, and would expect that app to continue working as long as Twitter exists. (Which it still does!) > On any reasonable viewpoint that's a risk accepted by the purchaser, not the app seller. If your definition for "reasonable" is actually the definition of "unreasonable", sure. Twitterific's customers should not have to take on the consequences of the risk that Twitter would shut down third-party access to their API. That is a risk that Twitterific took on themselves as a risk to their business, and they should have a plan for what to do in this case. And that plan should not be "beg our customers to pay us for not providing a service anymore". It should include them pro-actively refunding the unused portions of any subscriptions (super gross that they didn't do this, double-super gross that they're begging for "donations"), and then responsibly winding the company down (assuming they don't have any other still-viable products that could keep them going). It sucks that they'd have to do this, but that's what can happen when you bet your business on someone else's platform.
    - nocoiner 4y ago
      I keep reading your responses on this topic and nodding my head more and more vigorously. I really do feel for the devs, but also seems like they had a good run - really, about as long of a run as anyone can expect reasonably have in this space. Better than most, certainly.
yurishimo 4y ago
To be ultra charitable, if I bought a subscription for the app as a brand new customer and the very next week, Twitter revoked their API keys and kills the app entirely, yea I’m probably asking for a refund. If I had been a customer for years and years, obviously my calculation would be different.
iLoveOncall 4y ago
You are minimizing the situation with your metaphor. It's more like if you arrived at the house and they told you that you can't get in at all. Would you ask for a refund?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  No; my metaphor is quite precise. You're renting the beach house because it helps you enjoy the good weather while sitting on the sand. However, the beach house owner isn't responsible for providing the good weather: only the house itself. The beach house owner isn't in control of the weather, and you knew that at the time you rented.
  - nocoiner 4y ago
    Not to further beat the horse that is thoroughly bloodied and unrecognizable, but I’d say this is more like having the water and power shut off and the furniture repossessed on the first day of a week-long stay. Maybe legally, ethically, morally, the renters are SOL, but for me personally, I’m not sure my sympathies would lie with the landlord in that situation.
kelnos 4y ago
If the terms for that vacation purchase included guarantees of good weather, definitely. Just as if I buy an app (or a subscription to one), I expect the app's author to guarantee that it functions for its intended purpose, and return my money if it doesn't.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  It simply isn’t possible for any third party client to offer that kind of guarantee. Doesn’t matter what agreements you negotiated. Any large enough platform will just do it anyway and deal with the litigation. It was blatantly obvious to any buyer that these clients could only work so long as Twitter allowed it. This wasn’t a hidden risk, so anyone buying a subscription was implicitly accepting that risk as part of their purchase.
  - esskay 4y ago
    The customer was accepting that risk. Just as the developer was accepting the risk that they'd be expected to provide a refund on a subscription that isn't going to work anymore.
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      Sure, and if those happen then the developer will eat the cost. They've only asked people politely not to, given the extraordinary circumstances, not said that people cannot. The companies providing third party clients had already renegotiated their relationship with Twitter over the past few years, achieving a more stable baseline, API changes, defined escalation routes, etc. Musk's buying of the company and capricious shutting down of third parties without even having the option of having them do things like incorporate adverts is hardly something it was possible to plan for over the long term.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    > It simply isn’t possible for any third party client to offer that kind of guarantee. And that's exactly my point! Twitterific should have known that Twitter could pull the rug out from under them at any time, and had a plan to make their customers whole in that eventuality. Look, I'm not saying a company in their position should have to refund a one-time purchase cost of the app itself (for companies that do that sort of thing). But if you are charging an ongoing subscription for continuing service, and then that service terminates before the end of the subscription period, I think a pro-rated refund is more than fair. Hell, if Twitter themselves charged a subscription fee for having a Twitter account, I would expect them to give pro-rated refunds to customers if they decided to wind down their business or pivot to something else. Twitterific should be no different here.

So you'd try to get a refund on your beach vacation if it rained?

mads 4y ago

Well, if he was promised 100% sunshine, he might.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

sgarrity 4y ago

This feels a bit more like the power & water was cut off to the beach house, but I like taking metaphors one step to far.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
The basic point is that no-one pays for a Twitter client expecting it to keep working if (say) Twitter closes down or pivots into a rideshare company or decides to close down third-party access to the platform. On any reasonable viewpoint that's a risk accepted by the purchaser, not the app seller.
- esskay 4y ago
  If you bought a 12 month subscription to Netflix and they closed down next week are you honestly saying you wouldn't be asking for a refund? It doesn't matter that its an app for Twitter, you've paid for someone to provide something they can no longer deliver.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    If I bought a Netflix subscription, I'd expect them to provide the Netflix service. If I bought a TV with a Netflix app on it, I wouldn't expect a partial refund from the people who sold me the TV. Do you honestly not see these two things are different? One is "I paid for a service" and the other is "I paid for something to help me use a service".
    - schnebbau 4y ago
      You've straw-manned this. Netflix and Twitterific are the same thing: you pay a subscription and you expect to receive value in return.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Terrible analogy. If I buy a TV that has smart features or apps on it, I'm only marginally paying for the apps. It's even possible that Netflix is paying the TV manufacturer in order to be in the default install, so I'm not even paying for the apps; possibly I'm even paying slightly less for the TV than I otherwise would. (Even if that's not the case, that doesn't really change the calculus for me.) So, no, if Netflix disappeared in this case, I would not ask for a partial refund. The TV still works as a TV, and that's what I really paid for in the first place. (If Netflix didn't disappear, but the TV app stopped working, I might be -- justifiably -- annoyed, though!) This Twitterific thing is in no way comparable: the app only interacts with Twitter. That's its entire reason for being. If it can't do that, then it is worthless, and anyone who paid for it is perfectly in their rights to demand a refund. Hell, the Twitterific folks should be pro-actively refunding the unused portions of subscriptions; that's the only ethical thing to do here.
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        Did you ever own a dial-up modem? Was its only purpose for being that you logged into your ISP with it? Did you consider trying to get a refund when your ISP stopped providing dial-up service?
        esskay 4y ago
        Dial up was an on-demand pricing model, not a subscription. By your own rules that doesnt work. Now, if you had dial up and paid a subscription for access to a free phone number and they cut you off before your subscription ended, then yes you absolutely would expect a refund.
        kelnos 4y ago
        Yes, I did own a dial-up modem. In addition to connecting to my ISP, I spent many years connecting to various local BBSes. The ISP wasn't the only reason I had the modem. And, regardless, if my ISP stopped providing dial-up service, and I really still wanted dial-up service, I would have simply found another ISP to connect to. (After expecting my previous ISP to issue me a pro-rated refund for whatever subscription I was paying them.) Also regardless, your analogy is bad, as the modem was a one-time cost. The issue at hand is that of recurring subscription fees Twitterific charges. If we were just talking about a one-time cost to buy the Twitterific app, I wouldn't be suggesting the refund that cost (except to customers who just bought the app right before the shutdown, perhaps; seems shitty to keep customer money when the product irreparably breaks a few days after purchase).
- kelnos 4y ago
  But Twitter did not close down or pivot into a rideshare company. Yes, they did close down third-party access to their platform, but that is completely not the same as those other things you mention. I doubt most Twitterific customers have any idea what a third-party API platform is, let alone Twitter's shady history with how they've treated API developers. Your average Twitterific purchaser probably just thinks it's a premium Twitter app that lets them do Twitter things, and would expect that app to continue working as long as Twitter exists. (Which it still does!) > On any reasonable viewpoint that's a risk accepted by the purchaser, not the app seller. If your definition for "reasonable" is actually the definition of "unreasonable", sure. Twitterific's customers should not have to take on the consequences of the risk that Twitter would shut down third-party access to their API. That is a risk that Twitterific took on themselves as a risk to their business, and they should have a plan for what to do in this case. And that plan should not be "beg our customers to pay us for not providing a service anymore". It should include them pro-actively refunding the unused portions of any subscriptions (super gross that they didn't do this, double-super gross that they're begging for "donations"), and then responsibly winding the company down (assuming they don't have any other still-viable products that could keep them going). It sucks that they'd have to do this, but that's what can happen when you bet your business on someone else's platform.
  - nocoiner 4y ago
    I keep reading your responses on this topic and nodding my head more and more vigorously. I really do feel for the devs, but also seems like they had a good run - really, about as long of a run as anyone can expect reasonably have in this space. Better than most, certainly.

yurishimo 4y ago

To be ultra charitable, if I bought a subscription for the app as a brand new customer and the very next week, Twitter revoked their API keys and kills the app entirely, yea I’m probably asking for a refund. If I had been a customer for years and years, obviously my calculation would be different.

iLoveOncall 4y ago

You are minimizing the situation with your metaphor. It's more like if you arrived at the house and they told you that you can't get in at all. Would you ask for a refund?

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
No; my metaphor is quite precise. You're renting the beach house because it helps you enjoy the good weather while sitting on the sand. However, the beach house owner isn't responsible for providing the good weather: only the house itself. The beach house owner isn't in control of the weather, and you knew that at the time you rented.
- nocoiner 4y ago
  Not to further beat the horse that is thoroughly bloodied and unrecognizable, but I’d say this is more like having the water and power shut off and the furniture repossessed on the first day of a week-long stay. Maybe legally, ethically, morally, the renters are SOL, but for me personally, I’m not sure my sympathies would lie with the landlord in that situation.

kelnos 4y ago

If the terms for that vacation purchase included guarantees of good weather, definitely. Just as if I buy an app (or a subscription to one), I expect the app's author to guarantee that it functions for its intended purpose, and return my money if it doesn't.

_djo_ 4y ago
It simply isn’t possible for any third party client to offer that kind of guarantee. Doesn’t matter what agreements you negotiated. Any large enough platform will just do it anyway and deal with the litigation. It was blatantly obvious to any buyer that these clients could only work so long as Twitter allowed it. This wasn’t a hidden risk, so anyone buying a subscription was implicitly accepting that risk as part of their purchase.
- esskay 4y ago
  The customer was accepting that risk. Just as the developer was accepting the risk that they'd be expected to provide a refund on a subscription that isn't going to work anymore.
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    Sure, and if those happen then the developer will eat the cost. They've only asked people politely not to, given the extraordinary circumstances, not said that people cannot. The companies providing third party clients had already renegotiated their relationship with Twitter over the past few years, achieving a more stable baseline, API changes, defined escalation routes, etc. Musk's buying of the company and capricious shutting down of third parties without even having the option of having them do things like incorporate adverts is hardly something it was possible to plan for over the long term.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > It simply isn’t possible for any third party client to offer that kind of guarantee. And that's exactly my point! Twitterific should have known that Twitter could pull the rug out from under them at any time, and had a plan to make their customers whole in that eventuality. Look, I'm not saying a company in their position should have to refund a one-time purchase cost of the app itself (for companies that do that sort of thing). But if you are charging an ongoing subscription for continuing service, and then that service terminates before the end of the subscription period, I think a pro-rated refund is more than fair. Hell, if Twitter themselves charged a subscription fee for having a Twitter account, I would expect them to give pro-rated refunds to customers if they decided to wind down their business or pivot to something else. Twitterific should be no different here.